MarkIII said:
16-35 2.8 II
24-70 2.8 II
70-200 2.8 II
Covers the focal range for me. If I can't get what I need with those lenses, I need to move myself not get a longer lens.
May I ask how often do you shoot (let's say) at 91mm or 194mm focal length? Why do you need to cover the whole range? Just curious
.
My experience with zooms was that I tend to find the sweet spot or two and use it like a prime lens (to minimize the distortion, aberrations, softness etc.).
Well it is funny that you ask that question. This weekend during a wedding ceremony I was confined to the balcony and ended up having to shoot my 70-200. Yes i did shoot quite a few at either 70 or 200, but i shot almost as much at the in between spots as well. From the 141 shots i had with that lens: 59 were shot at in-between 70 and 200mm, 72 were shot at 70 or 200mm. So to answer your question i was shooting quite a bit in -between.
I feel there is a need to be able to cover a wide range of focal range in order to adapt to where you are shooting. In a church you cant always shoot from up front. A prime lens limits your abilities in my opinion on where you are able to shoot from. Yes, i have a 50 1.4 which i will bust out to have some fun with and experiment, but it ends up limiting me. I dont see the strong need for lenses faster than 2.8. I havent had an issue with a 2.8 lens in any situation, if it becomes too dark, thats when the flash comes out-typically only the dancing portion of the reception.
And now with the sharpness and quality from the 24-70 II it makes the 2.8 that much better. After using the lens this weekend, i realize why it is worth its money. Sharp, excellent colors, great IQ its a great lens in my opinion. I was very happy using it on my 5dmkIII.